Re: Ravenscar-compliant bounded buffer

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

MOVE ON TROLL, MOVE ON!
PROOF IS ACCREDITED WEB SITES SUCH AS ACM, IEEE, 
UNIVERSITY, OR SOFTWARE COMPANY. NOT 
SOME "wikipedia.org' THAT CAN BE ALTERED BY ALMOST 
ANYONE WHO VIST THE WEB PAGE!


In <ymr6l93r7p.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>, Markus E L writes:
>
>'anon AT anon DOT org (anon)' wrote:
>
>> WHERE IS YOU PROOF!!! If your going to call a person a liar then you 
>
>Oh noes, he's writing caps again.
>
><snipped a lot of strange stuff about GNAT using C as backend and DEC in the Ada history>
>
>> Before GNU system the idea of multi-platform compilers basically did 
>> not happen, but since then the major software houses have adopted this 
>> concept. A quick reason is that once they create a new processor they 
>
>See PCC, the portable C compiler by
>Johnson. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler for
>further references.
>
>Concerning your attempts to rewrite history concerning DEC and Ada: It
>might be that you'r basing your comments on a possible pre
>standardization involvment of DEC in the Ada development effort
>between 1979 and 1983 when "Green" was finally chosen to become
>Ada. Maybe DEC developed one of the Stoneman prototype
>compilers. Information about this is difficult to find w/o deeper
>research which I'm not in the mood to do now, and without you giving
>any references (which you really should, given that you try to tell a
>story that is different from what I know as accepted history). At the
>very least you're emphasizing the part of DEC in Ada history beyond
>all proportion (in another post some weeks ago you wrote something to
>the effect that DEC owns Ada - WTF?). But the thing that makes be
>really really suspicious is when you don't get thing right which (a) I
>know better and (b) you could have found out with a bit research, I
>even dare say: In some 10 years in the industry (and aren't you always
>pretending you're such an old hand?) you could not have been able to
>avoid learning some parts of the history, like about Johnson's
>portable compiler.
>
>So when everything is said and done, I begin to doubt especially the
>things in your statements which cannot be checked immediately. 
>
>And I would really appreciate if you stopped taking on a posture as an
>expert and talk like "ex cathedra". There are simply to many half
>truths and plain untruths in your grand sweeping oratories.
>
>> do not have to re-write all of the compiler codes and libraries. Just 
>> create the C compiler and recompile the software system from there.
>>
>
>
>-- Markus